After years of politely ignoring President Joe Biden’s mental decline, the New York Times suddenly puts Donald Trump under its metaphorical MRI a month before Election Day, while shrugging off concerns about the actual man supposedly in the White House and running the country, Democrat Joe Biden. The off-lead story in Monday’s paper was headlined: TRUMP REIGNITES QUESTION OF AGE WITH RAMBLINGS INCREASING STRIDENCY Analysis and Observers Note Changes in His Speech Patterns  White House correspondent Peter Baker penned the 3,000-word hit piece alongside “Artificial Intelligence” journalist Dylan Freedman (yes this was a full-blown “scientific” study of the words Trump has used in speeches over the years): Former President Donald J. Trump vividly recounted how the audience at his climactic debate with Vice President Kamala Harris was on his side. Except that there was no audience. The debate was held in an empty hall. No one “went crazy,” as Mr. Trump put it, because no one was there. Anyone can misremember, of course. But the debate had been just a week earlier and a fairly memorable moment. And it was hardly the only time Mr. Trump has seemed confused, forgetful, incoherent or disconnected from reality lately. In fact, it happens so often these days that it no longer even generates much attention. He rambles, he repeats himself, he roams from thought to thought -- some of them hard to understand, some of them unfinished, some of them factually fantastical. He voices outlandish claims that seem to be made up out of whole cloth. He digresses into bizarre tangents about golf, about sharks, about his own “beautiful” body…. The Times offered thin reeds to make its case for Trump’s cognitive decline. According to a computer analysis by The New York Times, Mr. Trump’s rally speeches now last an average of 82 minutes, compared with 45 minutes in 2016. Proportionately, he uses 13 percent more all-or-nothing terms like “always” and “never” than he did eight years ago, which some experts consider a sign of advancing age.   Of course, the Times joined the rest of the media in hiding Biden’s clear decline in cognitive ability. The Times defended Biden a day before the infamous Biden-Trump debate in June, with a Baker story linking to a pathetic Times report that dismissed clear evidence of Biden’s emerging decrepitude as “cheap fakes” circulated by Republicans: “Biden Battles Age Doubts and a Trail of Misleading Videos.” Perhaps not so “misleading” after all. Baker, like many liberals, has the nasty habit of psychoanalyzing Republicans for things that would be passed over as harmless or normal when done by Democrats. How much his rambling discourse -- what some experts call tangentiality -- can be attributed to age is the subject of some debate. Mr. Trump has always had a distinctive speaking style that entertained and captivated supporters even as critics called him detached from reality. Indeed, questions have been raised about Mr. Trump’s mental fitness for years. John F. Kelly, his second White House chief of staff, was so convinced that Mr. Trump was psychologically unbalanced that he bought a book called “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” written by 27 mental health professionals, to try to understand his boss better…. Baker has cited that wacky 2017 book (which surely violated the profession's "Goldwater Rule") before, one that his paper’s own left-wing editorial board found too much, although its contributors regularly pop up in the paper’s letters section, hurling repetitive anti-Trump rants under the guise of professional concern. Book editor Bandy X. Lee was fired from Yale in 2020 after a bizarre diagnosis of criminal defense lawyer and Trump defender Alan Dershowitz on Twitter. Lee was cited by Baker himself in a January 2018 news story: “Trump, Defending His Mental Fitness, Says He’s a ‘Very Stable Genius’.” Baker continued: Some of Mr. Trump’s cabinet secretaries had a running debate over whether the president was “crazy-crazy,” as one of them put it in an interview after leaving office, or merely someone who promoted “crazy ideas.” There were multiple conversations about whether the 25th Amendment disability clause should be invoked to remove him from office, although the idea never went far. His own estranged niece, Mary L. Trump, a clinical psychologist, wrote a book identifying disorders she believed he has. Mr. Trump bristled at such talk, insisting that he was “a very stable genius.” The most credible sources to the Times are people who know Trump and hate him an unusual amount of ferocity. 

House Democrat Rep. Bill Foster (Ill.) is part of three separate bills that push digital identification on Americans through legislation.The Illinois congressman first announced the Improving Digital Identity Act in September 2020, stating on Twitter then that "it's time the United States catches up with the developed world on digital identity technology."Citing the benefits of a "bipartisan" bill, Foster said it had become "vitally important to ramp up safeguards to protect against identity theft and fraud " so that businesses and consumers could have confidence in their online transactions.In a bipartisan manner, members of Congress appear to be collecting evidence to bolster their argument for why digital identification should be required.Apparently, this can only be done through digital ID.Foster has been relentless about this bill, reintroducing it in 2021 and again in 2024, Reclaim the Net reported.According to Foster's website, the bill asks for the creation of a Digital Identity Task Force made up of federal, state, and local representatives. The task force would develop methods for government agencies to "validate" and "protect" the identities of individuals online, including "tools for verification."This, of course, means government-issued digital IDs and government-operated verification programs.The task force would also determine whether a "fee-based model" for verification programs would be required.The bill, H.R.4258, comes with an estimated $50 million price tag over five years to develop the digital ID. It was originally co-sponsored by 10 Democrats and three Republicans, including Georgia's Barry Loudermilk (R), Rhode Island's James Langevin (D), and New York Rep. John Katko (R). — (@) In September 2024, Foster introduced another digital ID bill to "establish a Government-wide approach to improving digital identity, and for other purposes."The text for H.R. 9783 had yet to be submitted at the time of this publication.In June 2024, Foster co-sponsored Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins' bill on the same topic.H.R. 8658, the Emerging Digital Identity Ecosystem Report Act of 2024, asked for a report from TSA on "digital identity ecosystems."The report will include the benefits and risks of digital identities as they relate to homeland security in the United States. Bipartisanly, members of Congress appear to be collecting evidence to bolster their argument for requiring digital identification. The most popular reasons congressmen have given in their bill texts so far are tightening national security, securing online transactions, and preventing identity theft.Digital ID has long been a topic of discussion at the World Economic Forum, the yearly event where society's elites meet to decide which policy proposals to pursue in their jurisdictions.Since at least 2020, the WEF has advocated for a digital ID system to help society's most vulnerable members. "A digital ID system allowed Chile rapidly to pre-enroll millions of new beneficiaries in social programs," the organization wrote.In 2023, the WEF said it was "difficult or impossible" for the roughly 850 million people who don't have ID to "fully engage with society." This, according to the WEF, showcases a perfect reason to implement a cost-efficient, paperless ID system.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

When 23-year-old “Gubba” saw the empty shelves during the COVID-19 pandemic, she decided to take matters into her own hands. The city girl turned homesteader ditched life in Portland and traded ultra-processed foods, pharmaceuticals, and a desk job for 38 acres of farmland — where she is learning to become self-sufficient. “The fridges were barren; the freezers were barren. People were going crazy, fighting over bags of dried beans. And I still remember staring at those empty shelves, and I said, ‘What am I doing here? I am relying on a system that breaks so easily. I have become dependent on this unreliable system,’” Gubba tells Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Podcast.” “I said, ‘I am never going to find myself in this situation ever again.’ So that’s what really spurred me and, I think, started to really awaken a lot of other people,” she adds. While Gubba found herself on expansive acreage to live out her homesteading dreams, she tells Glenn that “you do not need land to become self-sufficient.” “The best place to start is in your kitchen, cooking from scratch, having a little window cell garden, and learning these skills,” she says. But it’s not just the food supply that has Gubba thriving in her more holistic lifestyle but the effects it’s had on her health — as well as her animals. “I’m nourishing with proper minerals and vitamins, I’m getting sunshine, I’m getting my vitamin D, I am properly keeping myself stress-free so I don’t have negativity in my life that is bringing me down energetically. So I am keeping myself healthy,” she tells Glenn. “I even feed my dogs raw dog food, and I support my local butcher by buying from them, or I even go and dumpster-dive from them,” she explains. “Look at the cancer rates in animals just skyrocketing on kibble. Go look at the kibble, and it’s soy and it’s cornmeal and its byproducts.” “There’s constant recalls on their kibble because animals are dying and it’s being covered up. So this is interesting because it’s not only our food system that’s being profited on but also our pets' food system. And that makes me even more sad because they don’t have a voice,” Gubba says, noting that she gets a box of organs from her local butcher for 80 cents a pound to feed her dogs. “If you just go to your local area, and you start looking around, you can find these sources too like I am,” she adds. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A mob of about 50 targeted a southern California 7-Eleven in a mass theft early Sunday morning — but this time the suspects beat up a store worker who was trying to keep the mob members out of the store, leaving him with a bloody nose, KTLA-TV reported, citing authorities.You can view raw cellphone video of the brutal incident here. The video's caption states that the violence took place in Los Angeles, but KTLA's video report — which uses part of the same raw clip — indicates that it took place in Anaheim around 1:30 a.m. during a street takeover.One mob member yells, 'Hey, throw a trash can at him!'The raw video shows two hooded perps trying to pull open the 7-Eleven's doors while one worker tries to pull the doors shut and keep them out.At one point, the store worker doubles over in pain as he's apparently hit in the midsection. He then picks up a stick, and the crooks run away — but only momentarily.As engines scream and tires screech in the background — presumably the ongoing street takeover — one of the suspects who initially tried to pull the doors open reappears at the front of the store at 50 South Knott Avenue holding what appears to be a cinderblock.With that, the worker in the store backs away from the doors, and the cinderblock-carrying guy moves in — along with a flood of other mob members.As the suspect carrying the cinderblock demands the worker's stick, another mob member rips an entire rack of lighters off the store's counter.But the 7-Eleven worker gamely fights back, swinging his stick at a couple of suspects who retreat — but more and more mob members enter the store, easily outnumbering the worker. One mob member yells, "Hey, throw a trash can at him!"Soon another mob member enters the store from the rear, and the raw video catches him standing right behind the store worker who apparently has no idea he's there. Suddenly, that mob member shoves the worker from behind, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain while the mob hoots and hollers with glee.The worker finally retreats to safety, heading to the rear of the store while the looting continues — and that's where the raw clip ends.Police told KTLA it's unclear how much merchandise the mob of about 40 to 50 members took, adding that they fled the scene before authorities arrived; no arrests were made. KTLA's video report said a cash register was stolen.Those with information about the Anaheim 7-Eleven incident should contact the Anaheim Police Department, the station said, adding that those wishing to remain anonymous can call the Orange County Crime Stoppers Hotline at 855-TIP-OCCS.You can view a second video report here about the incident that indicates the worker who fought back is the store owner.More of the sameAs readers of Blaze News know all too well, mob looting of 7-Elevens has become a kind of trend in Los Angeles of late. In August, a mob of about 20 individuals pulled off three nighttime smash-and-grab robberies in a span of 20 minutes. Last month, 50 juveniles on bicycles easily ransacked and robbed a 7-Eleven in L.A. and escaped police.But late last month, there was a small break when a handful of parents turned in their kids after L.A. police shared nearly 200 surveillance images of recent 7-Eleven mob robberies by "youthful males."The new police release unveiled a more extensive rundown of the "flash robberies" at 7-Elevens, saying they involve 20 to 40 suspects on bicycles who began targeting the stores on July 12. Police said all of the 7-Elevens are within a short distance of each other in the Rampart, Hollywood, Wilshire, and West L.A. Divisions. Police said 13 of the 14 incidents have occurred on Friday evenings.KTLA in a previous report said Assistant LAPD Chief Blake Chow told the L.A. Board of Police Commissioners that the news release generated numerous tips from the public that led to arrests. What's more, Chow said a parent brought in a juvenile who was involved in one of the robberies, adding that two other parents also turned in their kids. In each instance, the child was booked for robbery. Investigators learned through interviews that many of the juveniles involved in the 7-Eleven flash robberies were not from the neighborhoods where the crimes took place, Chow told KTLA.More arrests are anticipated as anonymous tips continue to come in and school resource officers work to identify other juveniles involved, Chow added to the station.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) refused to capitulate on Sunday when ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos pressed him about comments from Eric Trump criticizing Democrats.According to Stephanopoulos, Eric Trump asserted over the weekend that the Democratic Party is "behind the effort to assassinate" former President Donald Trump. The lifelong Democrat then asked Johnson a loaded question.'The lawfare is unprecedented. They have attacked him in every single way. They try to malign his character every single day.'"So, is it right for the president and his family to suggest that Democrats are behind the effort to assassinate him?" Stephanopoulos asked.At first, Johnson explained that he did not hear the full context of Eric Trump's comments, telling Stephanopoulos that he doesn't believe Eric was claiming the "Democratic Party tried an assassination attempt." Rather, Johnson added, he believes Eric Trump was referring to Democrats' rhetoric about Donald Trump, which claims the former president is an existential threat to American democracy that must be stopped or America will cease to exist."It's absolute nonsense," Johnson said. "And they have incited dangerous people to do dangerous things — the rhetoric has. I think that is a fact that's objective that everybody can agree to. We do need to turn the volume down."Unfortunately, that answer was not sufficient for Stephanopoulos. Instead, the anchor doubled down on his question after reading Eric Trump's remarks out of context.Here is what Eric Trump said, according to Stephanopoulos' quote:They tried to kill him. They tried to kill him and it's because of the Democratic Party, they can't do anything right.But Johnson refused to cave. After noting, again, that he needs to see the full context of Eric Trump's remarks to understand correctly what Eric was saying, Johnson explained what he believes Eric meant."What they're referring to, though, is the absolute open attacks that have been engaged by Democrats against President Trump since the day he came down that golden escalator in 2016 [sic], OK?" Johnson said. "The lawfare is unprecedented. They have attacked him in every single way. They try to malign his character every single day. And the people have had enough of it. That's why you have these massive turnouts at the rallies. People have had enough of this."In response, Stephanopoulos accused Johnson of "actually repeating the charge" before reading Eric Trump's remarks once more."What more context do you need?!" Stephanopoulos demanded. "Do you support that statement or not?""I'm not going to parse the language what people say at rallies," Johnson replied. "I could give you pages and pages of crazy comments by the leading Democrats in this country. That's not what this is about. We have to talk about the greatest collection of challenges that this country is facing probably since World War II, maybe the Civil War. Let's put all this political nonsense behind us and talk about how we get out of this mess."Still unsatisfied, Stephanopoulos pressed the issue one final time, receiving the same answer from Johnson as before."So, it's very clear you're not going to condemn the base's suggestion the Democrats are behind the assassination attempt on Donald Trump," Stephanopoulos huffed and puffed before asking a new question. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) penned an op-ed Friday blasting the FBI and other federal intelligence agencies over their apparent disinterest regarding threats to the integrity of American elections posed by illegal aliens, Democratic "smurfing" operations, and political actors inside the intelligence community. During a classified meeting for members of the U.S. Senate on Sept. 25, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, and CISA Director Jen Easterly reportedly discussed the efforts of foreign actors to meddle in the upcoming election. Johnson indicated that, barring a few details, he heard nothing new about foreign threats — "certainly nothing that should be considered or kept classified." The senator noted further that while forthcoming about supposed foreign threats, the intel leaders said "absolutely nothing about the most egregious examples of election interference in our lifetime, or the most significant threats to the integrity of the 2024 election." 'We already have plenty of evidence that illegal immigrants are registering.' They were reportedly mum, for instance, on the matter of alleged Democratic campaign contribution fraud. Smurfing Johnson indicated that he asked Wray what the FBI was doing to investigate Democratic smurfing — a money laundering technique whereby large sums of money are fragmented into smaller portions for distribution with the aim of avoiding reporting thresholds and detection by regulatory authorities. Chronicles noted that in the context of elections, smurfing is used to launder illegal contributions to political campaigns, sometimes through identity theft, avoiding campaign limits. "This clear violation of campaign finance law was first revealed in March 2023 by investigative journalist, James O'Keefe. Using ActBlue, the Democrats' donation platform, thousands of low-dollar donations are attributed to individuals allegedly without their knowledge — in one instance 5,776 donations totaling $754,124," wrote Johnson. In late August, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R) raised similar concerns about ActBlue in a letter to the organization's CEO, Regina Wallace-Jones. The South Carolina Daily Gazette reported that in his letter, Wilson referenced specific examples of donors in the state making an "implausible and highly suspicious" number of smaller donations. "Alarmingly, some of these individuals list their occupations as 'unemployed' or report jobs that could not be reasonably commensurate to the total amount of financial contributions made by others in similar positions," wrote Wilson. "The allegations also raise the question of whether contributions were made without the reported donors' consent or awareness, which is equally troubling." Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares also raised concerns about fraud with ActBlue in August, noting that his office "has become aware of multiple serious allegations that ActBlue, ActBlue Civics, Inc., and ActBlue Charities, Inc. ... have engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, and/or otherwise illegal activities in the Commonwealth of Virginia and/or have aided and abetted others in doing so. This includes hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions through individual donors in the Commonwealth in volumes that are facially implausible and appear suspicious." ActBlue responded in the first case with a statement claiming, "These false so-called 'allegations' are intentionally designed to mislead the public." According to Sen. Johnson, Wray "seemed clueless on the issue" during the classified briefing and provided no indication that the FBI was looking into the matter. Illegal voters The meeting was terminated before Johnson could ask about illegal aliens registering voting, but he nevertheless made his concerns known in the op-ed, writing, "Don't be under the illusion that just because noncitizens are ineligible to vote, Democrats aren't willing to overlook that legal technicality to win an election. We already have plenty of evidence that illegal immigrants are registering, sometimes without their knowledge." The senator referred to the cancellation of nearly 500 noncitizen voter registrations in Ohio. Other states have similarly found noncitizens on voter rolls. In August, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) issued an executive order in early August removing over 6,000 noncitizens who had "accidentally or maliciously attempted to register" to vote. 'Federal law enforcement won't have any interest in investigating those crimes.' "Call me crazy, but I think American elections should be decided by American citizens and Virginia elections should be decided by Virginians," Youngkin said in an interview. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced weeks later that his state had removed over 1 million ineligible voters from the voter rolls, including 6,500 noncitizens. Oregon officials admitted last month to registering over 1,200 noncitizens to vote, nine of whom were found to have already voted. The Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project published troubling footage in July showing a handful of noncitizens in Georgia admitting they were registered to vote. "Systems are being taken advantage of, and the outcome of the 2024 election will be difficult to determine given the near-impossibility of auditing in a short period of time," said the Oversight Project. "President Biden threw open the borders and directed federal departments to register voters," Johnson wrote, apparently referring to Biden's Executive Order 14019. "Does anyone believe that registration effort will be non-partisan, or that some percentage of the millions of illegal immigrants won’t vote in November? Based on last Wednesday's briefing, I'm confident federal law enforcement won't have any interest in investigating those crimes either." No accountability for the intel letter Extra to highlighting "egregious examples" of election interference he figures will impact the 2024 election, Johnson reflected on an instance that proved consequential in the 2020 presidential election. Johnson noted that he raised what he regards as the most egregious example of election interference in recent memory: "the letter solicited by current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, engineered by former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell and fast-tracked by then-CIA Director Gina Haspel." Less than a month ahead of the 2020 election, the New York Post reported about the incriminating contents of Hunter Biden's laptop and raised various questions about then-candidate Joe Biden, especially about his shady ties to Ukraine. This report easily had the potential to sink Biden and his campaign. However, elements of the intelligence community hostile to President Donald Trump swooped into action, releasing a public letter on Oct. 19, 2020, asserting that the Hunter Biden laptop story had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" intended to hurt the Democrat's candidacy. Michael Morell, one of the former CIA directors Biden referred to, later testified to Congress that he organized the letter to "help Vice President Biden" but more specifically to help "him to win the election." The House Committee on the Judiciary, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence revealed in a June report that former CIA acting Director Michael Morell and ex-CIA Inspector General David Buckley were both active contractors with top-secret clearances for the agency when they signed the letter. Blaze News previously reported that none of the intelligence officials had apparently seen the evidence of which they spoke before signing the letter, and no signatory has since expressed regret. Biden repeatedly used the misleading letter, including in his Oct. 22 debate with Trump, where he said, "Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this, he's accusing me of, is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four — five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani." Johnson stressed in his op-ed that the FBI had seized Hunter Biden's laptop roughly a year earlier and "knew full well it was authentic." "That letter itself was a 'U.S. intelligence information operation,'" wrote Johnson. "And it worked exceedingly well. Because of that letter, the Hunter Biden laptop story was effectively suppressed as Russian disinformation, and Joe Biden became president." The ODNI and FBI did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Guys, I’m not sure Kamala Harris is going to make it. Don’t get me wrong — I think she can win. Well, no. She can’t win. But the Democrats can. I firmly believe that if Democrats unite, supported by their captured institutions like the media, academia, Wall Street, the health care industry, local and state governments, and schools, and launch a full-court press like they did in 2020, they can carry Harris over the finish line, regardless of history. But will they? That’s a more complicated question. Is Kamala really going to inspire enough Democrats to fight for the second first female presidential candidate this decade? It feels a little bit stale. What’s in it for them? A united Democratic Party might not be enough to defeat Donald Trump this time. The polls suggest that Harris will need more than just support and votes; she’ll need special support and “special votes” to secure decisive swing-state victories. Organizing door-to-door harvesting, ballot curing, and the intense effort to bring Democratic voters and ballots to the polls will require an army of skilled operatives. What will all these operatives gain if Harris wins? The Democratic Party is a coalition of factions, each driven by its own interests and loosely unified by a shared desire for federal dollars and the ability to dodge the consequences of their policies. For many of the power players in these factions, a Harris victory means staying out in the cold for eight more years. But if Trump wins, they only need to wait four. Republicans argue that Biden and Harris are figureheads for a shadow government. According to this view, their competence doesn’t matter because they’re merely placeholders for whoever truly pulls the strings. Therefore, it’s irrelevant, conservatives claim, if Kamala Harris struggles to retain staff or lacks the magnetism of a coalition builder. She remains useful and convenient to the people who actually call the shots. Therefore, we are doomed. This argument misses key truths about politics and power. For the past decade, many on the right have viewed the Democratic Party as an unstoppable juggernaut. Its size and ideological consistency seem so overwhelming that leadership almost appears irrelevant. Alternatively, some claim that the deep state’s corruption and financial security prevent any internal power struggles from threatening its dominance. The house always wins — except for that one slip in 2016 when it wasn’t paying attention. Conventional wisdom on the right now holds that the people and history stand no chance against a fully alert and engaged Democratic Party machine. We’ll see. This isn’t a guarantee that Kamala Harris will cross the finish line. Biden’s 2020 victory was different. The current ruling faction of the Democratic Party — led by Barack Obama and veterans of his administration — could expect uninterrupted control with Biden at the helm. As the party moved from its Chicago superstar to what came next after Hillary Clinton's defeat, Obama’s allies could rest assured that his former vice president wouldn’t disrupt the status quo. But does Harris give the Obama camp or what’s left of the Clinton machine the same assurance? That’s hard to imagine. Harris represents California’s political establishment, linked to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Her White House would not necessarily continue the Obama legacy, even though she serves as Biden’s vice president. Nor would she reignite the Democratic base in New York or Pennsylvania. Will all these state Democratic organizations push full steam ahead in November, knowing they might be crowning California Democrats for the next eight or even 16 years? And with a more vigilant electorate already aware of the Democratic Party’s pre- and post-electoral shenanigans, will operatives in places like Arizona and Georgia risk it all for California Kamala? The Democratic Party chose Biden as the compromise candidate for the 2020 election after securing key endorsements, such as Jim Clyburn’s in South Carolina. This process was crucial to determining which faction would lead in the post-Obama era. In 2015, it was clear that Hillary Clinton would have her turn, but after Trump’s 2016 victory, the party struggled to settle on a new leader. Biden’s selection signaled a refusal to hand the party to the progressive factions backing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Instead, he represented a continuation of Obama’s legacy — a placeholder who could attract disaffected white voters. It was widely understood that Biden would likely serve only one term, giving other ambitious party members room to vie for leadership in the next cycle. The trouble is, Harris didn’t win a single primary in 2020, making her rise to the top of the ticket without full coalition consultation highly doubtful. While the party bigs will support her, it remains uncertain whether they will put in the same effort to carry her over the finish line. It doesn’t seem like history (with-a-capital-H) is on Kamala’s side. Sure, sure, the “first female president” and all that. But I can’t be the only woman who feels like we already simultaneously checked and crossed out that box when Hillary ran for what felt like 20 years straight a few years back. Clinton was the woman everyone thought should have been the first female president but — whoops! — we didn’t get around to it. Is Kamala really going to inspire enough Democrats to fight for the second first female presidential candidate this decade? It feels a little bit stale. If the Democratic Party’s sundry factions fail to realize the same first black president enthusiasm they felt in 2008 or the first female president energy of 2016, or even please just not the Bad Orange Man in 2020, Kamala Harris will find herself the second first female president to be denied by Donald Trump.

A new poll shows that bellwether counties in Pennsylvania are turning over to the Republican column with less than a month left in the presidential election. 'This is further evidence of these ancestral Democrats increasingly leaving the party of their forefathers.' The Cygnal survey found that former President Donald Trump is winning in Erie and Northampton Counties, both of which have voted for the winner of the state in every election since 2008. Trump gets support from 49% of respondents to 48% that support Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, a gap that would likely increase at the election given historical trends with Trump. “In a reversal from 2020, Pennsylvania’s ‘Bellwether Counties’ have narrowly swung back to Donald Trump,” read a statement from Cygnal to the Daily Wire. “As Democrats have a 4-point party registration advantage in these counties, this is further evidence of these ancestral Democrats increasingly leaving the party of their forefathers.”The top issues for voters in the bellwether counties were those in which Republicans are beating Democrats: the economy and immigration. 31% of those voters said inflation and the economy were their top concern, while 24% cited border security and immigration as their top concern. Trump beats Harris on the issue of immigration by 15 percentage points while beating her on the economy by 6 percentage points. The poll found that half of the likely voters in Pennsylvania approved of Trump's performance in office, while only 39% approved of the current administration. If Harris loses Pennsylvania, her campaign will face fierce criticism for picking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her vice presidential candidate rather than Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D). Harris snubbed the Jewish politician apparently to appease anti-Israel Democratic voters who have threatened to boycott the election unless Democrats stop supporting Israel and its war on Hamas terrorists. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Brian Stelter Explains Why Kamala Harris Is in for a Tough, Challenging Grilling on 'The View'

Five Possible October Surprises - Would They Really Have Any Impact on the Race?